Post by: Artimus on March 30, 2007, 04:53:08 AM
Post by: Caliban on March 30, 2007, 05:09:14 AM
Post by: Artimus on March 30, 2007, 05:17:45 AM
Post by: MaryJane on March 30, 2007, 05:56:00 AM
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on March 30, 2007, 05:56:18 AM
Post by: vudu on March 30, 2007, 05:59:44 AM
QuoteLink.
Originally posted by: MaryJane
Can those who don't know what you guys are talking about get an explanation? I haven't really been keeping up with PS3 news.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on March 30, 2007, 06:17:01 AM
QuoteHave you crunched the numbers that quantify energy used to research data? Can you post them?
I am appalled at the systematic wasting of energy that his program has triggered. It's almost offensive it's so blatantly wasteful.
Post by: Caliban on March 30, 2007, 02:57:07 PM
The same with SETI@home, I prefer it, but who the f~ck cares about the aliens, if they exist let them come to us, we need to sort out our planet first, and then we can go kill some aliens.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on March 30, 2007, 03:11:57 PM
Post by: King of Twitch on March 30, 2007, 03:12:50 PM
Post by: Artimus on March 30, 2007, 04:52:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-R
I like how the comments on that site accumulate in a backwards orderQuoteHave you crunched the numbers that quantify energy used to research data? Can you post them?
I am appalled at the systematic wasting of energy that his program has triggered. It's almost offensive it's so blatantly wasteful.
Curing cancer is pointless if we're ALL DEAD.
Post by: Shift Key on April 02, 2007, 10:45:38 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban
I think Folding@Home shouldn't even exist to the public, the pharmaceutical industry generates BILLIONS upon BILLIONS so why don't they buy their own Super Computers to do all their number crunching. I don't get paid to do their job so why should I use my resources for them, if they would give me a cut from their profits that would be a completely different story.
1. Folding@Home is not run by the pharmaceutical industry. Its a project run by Stanford University. If they find anything, they benefit. Not the industry.
2. This isn't a profit driven concept. Its a utilization concept. If your computer is idling, then why not set it to work doing something beneficial? Its not something that is expected to run 24-7 on your computer.
3. It is a research subject, not a "find a cure" search. Research is the fuel that runs universities these days. The project itself has been pretty successful, check out the results and see for yourself.
Got any more complaints about Folding@Home?
Post by: Caliban on April 03, 2007, 05:05:34 AM
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on April 03, 2007, 05:44:59 AM
Quote
Who "owns" the results? What will happen to them? Unlike other distributed computing projects, Folding@home is run by an academic institution (specifically the Pande Group, at Stanford University's Chemistry Department), which is a nonprofit institution dedicated to science research and education. We will not sell the data or make any money off of it.
Moreover, we will make the data available for others to use. In particular, the results from Folding@home will be made available on several levels. Most importantly, analysis of the simulations will be submitted to scientific journals for publication, and these journal articles will be posted on the web page after publication. Next, after publication of these scientific articles which analyze the data, the raw data of the folding runs will be available for everyone, including other researchers, here on this web site.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on April 03, 2007, 06:39:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArtimusCuring cancer is pointless if we're ALL DEAD.
I'm pretty sure you could run every PS3 in the world for a million years and it would probably not kill us.
Have you crunched the numbers that quantify energy used to research data? Can you post them?
Post by: Shift Key on April 03, 2007, 10:33:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban
and don't come at me with the bs that we do it all for the benefit of the scientific community and humanity in general because that is just pure utopia considering that they are just as capitalist as any other industry.
MUST CRUSH CAPITALISM THROUGH ANGST AND IGNORANCE
You're a clown. Ever thought that perhaps there's some semblance of reward from sharing information and resources with other people? Or are you lacking a single selfless bone in your body?
Sure, capitalism isn't going away any time soon (wait until Zombie Che Guevara rises from the dead and sees his face on those shirts that trendy arts students wear when they protest the war, then I believe the story goes that he turns into the Hulk and climbs the Empire State building), but there's a lot of projects out there that are run on the back of volunteers and communities.
Post by: Artimus on April 03, 2007, 10:44:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-RQuote
Originally posted by: ArtimusCuring cancer is pointless if we're ALL DEAD.
I'm pretty sure you could run every PS3 in the world for a million years and it would probably not kill us.
Have you crunched the numbers that quantify energy used to research data? Can you post them?
Maybe it wouldn't kill us but it would totally deplete all our fuel resources before the advancement of alternative, renewable, fuels and we'd end up back in the pre-industrial age. Which would make modern medicine impossible, thereby negating any possible benefit of curing cancer.
How does one quantify energy used to research data? Can you explain that? Or should I also post a random question that really has no answer and only serves as a convenient way of avoiding discussion...?
And I say this as someone who lost a parent to cancer when he was seven. I just know that people are always going to die of something. I'd rather see humanity as a whole live on before I'd see the people alive right now live longer. Ideally both would be nice, but one thing at a time.
Though it's always nice to ease our middle-class technology driven guilt with something, isn't it? Self deception for the win.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on April 04, 2007, 04:24:55 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Artimus
How does one quantify energy used to research data? Can you explain that? Or should I also post a random question that really has no answer and only serves as a convenient way of avoiding discussion...?
You can't, but it sure seemed like what you were trying to do. You have no argument.
PS3 PROCESSES ARE GOING TO DEPLETE ALL OF OUR ENERGY IN THE WORLD!!! WATCH OUT
Post by: lain sup on April 04, 2007, 04:33:53 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArtimusQuote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-RQuote
Originally posted by: ArtimusCuring cancer is pointless if we're ALL DEAD.
I'm pretty sure you could run every PS3 in the world for a million years and it would probably not kill us.
Have you crunched the numbers that quantify energy used to research data? Can you post them?
Maybe it wouldn't kill us but it would totally deplete all our fuel resources before the advancement of alternative, renewable, fuels and we'd end up back in the pre-industrial age. Which would make modern medicine impossible, thereby negating any possible benefit of curing cancer.
How does one quantify energy used to research data? Can you explain that? Or should I also post a random question that really has no answer and only serves as a convenient way of avoiding discussion...?
And I say this as someone who lost a parent to cancer when he was seven. I just know that people are always going to die of something. I'd rather see humanity as a whole live on before I'd see the people alive right now live longer. Ideally both would be nice, but one thing at a time.
Though it's always nice to ease our middle-class technology driven guilt with something, isn't it? Self deception for the win.
I just want you to know the ignorance and stupidity laced throughout this post urged me to register just to call you a moron.
Post by: Artimus on April 04, 2007, 09:55:08 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-RQuote
Originally posted by: Artimus
How does one quantify energy used to research data? Can you explain that? Or should I also post a random question that really has no answer and only serves as a convenient way of avoiding discussion...?
You can't, but it sure seemed like what you were trying to do. You have no argument.
PS3 PROCESSES ARE GOING TO DEPLETE ALL OF OUR ENERGY IN THE WORLD!!! WATCH OUT
My argument is that leaving a PS3 on 24 hours a day to run folding@home is counter-beneficial. Running the program when the system is normally idle makes perfect sense. But wasting energy by leaving it on 24 hours a day isn't doing anyone any good either. That's an argument, whether you're able to discuss it or not.
People who do leave it on 24 hours a day simply feel the opposite of how I do. They believe it is worth it. I disagree. If I have no argument then they don't either. Therefore, by your logic, it is impossible to determine if Folding@Home does any good at all. Though we do know that it uses energy. A lot. That is for certain. We don't know, however, whether it will or will not cure cancer. If anything, not running your system 24 hours is known to do less damage than running it is known to do good.
Post by: vudu on April 04, 2007, 10:35:48 AM
Post by: Artimus on April 04, 2007, 12:20:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: vudu
I think Ty's argument is that you can't quite put a price on the results that this research could lead to. However, you seem to have when you said that by leaving your system on you're offsetting any good you do. According to you, these results are worth less than 8.49 cents/kWh. Go figure.
It's not a cost issue. If it was only a matter of paying 9 cents an hour to cure cancer, that would be fine. But that's not really the point?
It seems to me that if people were serious about doing good they'd do Folding, sure, but offset it by decreasing energy usage elsewhere or something.
Post by: Caliban on April 04, 2007, 05:08:52 PM
I'm not against capitalism. Nor in favour of it.
You're a clown.
Pfft.
Ever thought that perhaps there's some semblance of reward from sharing information and resources with other people? Or are you lacking a single selfless bone in your body?
More than you can imagine.
Sure, capitalism isn't going away any time soon (wait until Zombie Che Guevara rises from the dead and sees his face on those shirts that trendy arts students wear when they protest the war, then I believe the story goes that he turns into the Hulk and climbs the Empire State building), but there's a lot of projects out there that are run on the back of volunteers and communities.
B-u-t-t-e-r-.
Post by: Kairon on April 04, 2007, 05:21:59 PM
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Shift Key on April 04, 2007, 06:30:02 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban
Pfft.
I quiver at the quality of this response. Especially after you start off with:
Quote
SETI@Home is much cooler.
which in itself is a great example of wasted research.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on April 04, 2007, 07:09:19 PM
QuoteI see that's the point you're trying to make, but you have to substantiate it. Please post an article or compelling argument or ANYTHING that would indicate that the power used folding proteins is "almost offensive it's so blatantly wasteful."
But wasting energy by leaving it on 24 hours a day isn't doing anyone any good either.
Also, I'd like to point out that the power consumption of the PS3 while grinding these numbers (200w) is less than a decent PC at idle (220w).
Edit: good to see SAGoons are still in the top ten teams
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 04, 2007, 07:19:25 PM
I was totally mistaken.
Post by: Caliban on April 04, 2007, 07:48:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Shift KeyQuote
Originally posted by: Caliban
Pfft.
I quiver at the quality of this response. Especially after you start off with:Quote
SETI@Home is much cooler.
which in itself is a great example of wasted research.
Yeah and calling me a clown just makes it that much better.
Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban
The same with SETI@home, I prefer it, but who the f~ck cares about the aliens, if they exist let them come to us, we need to sort out our planet first, and then we can go kill some aliens.
Post by: Artimus on April 04, 2007, 09:21:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-RQuoteI see that's the point you're trying to make, but you have to substantiate it. Please post an article or compelling argument or ANYTHING that would indicate that the power used folding proteins is "almost offensive it's so blatantly wasteful."
But wasting energy by leaving it on 24 hours a day isn't doing anyone any good either.
Uhhh, it's my opinion. We've already gone over this (as you continue ignoring any of the points I raised as you cannot answer them). You cannot quantify the research. I find it an absurd waste of money to leave the PS3 on SOLELY for that reason.
Quote
Also, I'd like to point out that the power consumption of the PS3 while grinding these numbers (200w) is less than a decent PC at idle (220w).
What if you were running the most basic computer? That example is not a low-end machine, which would be perfectly fine for running F@H.
Post by: Shift Key on April 04, 2007, 09:29:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban
Yeah and calling me a clown just makes it that much better.
Would you rather clownboat?
And please continue on with the bitter rant about the pharmaceutical industry. Although its totally unrelated to this thread, its still great to hear someone complain about things that they actually have no experience with.
EDIT:
And Arty, the PS3 is a bit more than a basic PC. I think the specs for the system that they tested there are pretty comparable. Apples and kinda-sorta-apples.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on April 04, 2007, 11:02:39 PM
Quote
Uhhh, it's my opinion.
Why did you start a thread to post your ridiculous opinion if you weren't planning on backing it up?
QuoteI can't seem to separate any of the points from your retarded, you're gonna have to repost them.
We've already gone over this (as you continue ignoring any of the points I raised as you cannot answer them).
Quote
You cannot quantify the research. I find it an absurd waste of money to leave the PS3 on SOLELY for that reason.
Right, because the PS3 is causing an energy crisis because of all the nerds that just can't stop running folding@home.
Quote
What if you were running the most basic computer? That example is not a low-end machine, which would be perfectly fine for running F@H.
Crappy old computers use 100-200w at average use. And of course, crappy old computers don't fold proteins as fast. :3
Quote
It's not a cost issue.
Quotelol
I find it an absurd waste of money to leave the PS3 on SOLELY for that reason.
Post by: UncleBob on April 05, 2007, 02:28:51 AM
Post by: Artimus on April 05, 2007, 04:49:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-RQuote
Uhhh, it's my opinion.
Why did you start a thread to post your ridiculous opinion if you weren't planning on backing it up?
I'm backing it up by explaining why. This isn't a quantifiable thing. All you can do is discuss why you have the position you do. Key word: discuss.
QuoteQuoteI can't seem to separate any of the points from your retarded, you're gonna have to repost them.
We've already gone over this (as you continue ignoring any of the points I raised as you cannot answer them).
Very clever. Will you call me "doodie head" next?
QuoteQuote
You cannot quantify the research. I find it an absurd waste of money to leave the PS3 on SOLELY for that reason.
Right, because the PS3 is causing an energy crisis because of all the nerds that just can't stop running folding@home.
Hyperbole kind of renders your comment irrelevant.
QuoteQuote
What if you were running the most basic computer? That example is not a low-end machine, which would be perfectly fine for running F@H.
Crappy old computers use 100-200w at average use. And of course, crappy old computers don't fold proteins as fast. :3
So it's ok for you to just make up numbers?
QuoteQuote
It's not a cost issue.Quotelol
I find it an absurd waste of money to leave the PS3 on SOLELY for that reason.
That was a typo, I meant energy not money.
Post by: oohhboy on April 05, 2007, 07:29:21 AM
With Folding, you have already purchased the hardware for other uses. Idle time cost you nothing since you can run anything else of value to you. You house it in space you have readily avaliable, you and Sony maintain it, the only extra cost to you is power and your internet connect which would also run idle otherwise.
As interesting as it is pointlessly discussing the economics of making a donation, whether is is virtual or otherwise, there are articals out there looks into how much power the internet consumes. It is mind boggling to see how much power it takes to enable me, for you, to see this sentance on the screen in front of you. Ask yourself whether it is worth running it all so people can communicate faster, more percisely than ever before. All the information and porn in the world at your finger tips. Would it really be worthwhile to turn it off because it uses alot of energy?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 05, 2007, 08:11:32 AM
Post by: lain sup on April 05, 2007, 05:30:39 PM
A non-profit, charity organization that is passed down total crap computers. Most of their computers have a PSU of at least 200w. Not a single person I know online or off has one below 300 that they actively use.
Do you have any idea how the PS3 works, or a basic computer for that matter? The Folding process doesn't even utilize the GPU, which is the /biggest/ pull on the system's PSU. It's harmless and you are blowing this way out of proportion.
I feel like I've stumbled onto something comparable to a Gaia online political debate minus pictures of BU$H LOOKIN LIKE A MONKEY LOL
Professional 666: Just because no one quoted your unfunny bitter Wii fanboy quip, doesn't mean we didn't see it. Yes, we realize you hate the PS3. Thanks. stop posting.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on April 05, 2007, 06:15:49 PM
Post by: Shift Key on April 05, 2007, 06:40:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: lain sup
I feel like I've stumbled onto something comparable to a Gaia online political debate minus pictures of BU$H LOOKIN LIKE A MONKEY LOL
Professional 666: Just because no one quoted your unfunny bitter Wii fanboy quip, doesn't mean we didn't see it. Yes, we realize you hate the PS3. Thanks. stop posting.
Quiet, newbie. Respect isn't something that is handed out on the street corner.
EDIT: LLORTLLORT
Post by: manunited4eva22 on April 13, 2007, 02:58:02 PM
Folding@home is a waste of resources? Since you do absolutely nothing to back up your assertion, let me just go ahead and do it for you.
According to the folding@home stats site (available here) There are around 30,000 active CPUs, and just for the sake of ease, we will just call that 50,000 active CPUs.
The PS3 runs at about 200Wh. For the entire system, thats about 1MWh. In your strange little world of power equivalences, this is to be considered a lot of energy. Just for reference, a 30hp engine is outputting 25,000W, which is about the hp used for everyday cruising. In other words, if there were 40 less cars driving an hour in the world, that would offset the power used by folding@home for the ps3 module.
Now for the facts of folding@home, and the good it provides.
There have been over 50 peer reviewed papers released, with dozens in the pipelines.
The first computer based, peer reviewed article, about the misfolding of a protein responsible for 50% of all cancers. Significant research into the causes and into understand Mad Cow Disease, Alzheimer's, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's, and of course cancer, just to name a few.
Millions upon millions of people are affected by these diseases, many doomed to death, prolonged suffering, and long term, inefficient, and expensive treatments. You bitch and moan about the waste of energy, yet don't even think about the amount of energy poured into the creation of drugs that are in the end less effective in that they often can only slow down a disease, and will require the production of that drug for years in highly energy inefficient methods.
You can also ignore the billions of dollars that are lost to insurance, malpractice, and general health care for sufferers, because of these diseases. Strictly from a monetary view, the research on these diseases is worth far, far, more, than the equivalent costs.
The next time you feel the need to apply your juvenile moral superiority on subjects you don't understand and refuse to learn about, just go ahead and slap yourself in the face. If you are going to act in a way that is the equivalent of a slap in the face to those whom you marginalize due to your lack of knowledge, you might as well make it square and do it to yourself too.
Post by: Kairon on April 13, 2007, 03:19:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: manunited4eva22
This is about the third time I've posted since I left with mouse. I just can't stand seeing such unqualified stupidity.
Folding@home is a waste of resources? Since you do absolutely nothing to back up your assertion, let me just go ahead and do it for you.
According to the folding@home stats site (available here) There are around 30,000 active CPUs, and just for the sake of ease, we will just call that 50,000 active CPUs.
The PS3 runs at about 200Wh. For the entire system, thats about 1MWh. In your strange little world of power equivalences, this is to be considered a lot of energy. Just for reference, a 30hp engine is outputting 25,000W, which is about the hp used for everyday cruising. In other words, if there were 40 less cars driving an hour in the world, that would offset the power used by folding@home for the ps3 module.
Now for the facts of folding@home, and the good it provides.
There have been over 50 peer reviewed papers released, with dozens in the pipelines.
The first computer based, peer reviewed article, about the misfolding of a protein responsible for 50% of all cancers. Significant research into the causes and into understand Mad Cow Disease, Alzheimer's, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's, and of course cancer, just to name a few.
Millions upon millions of people are affected by these diseases, many doomed to death, prolonged suffering, and long term, inefficient, and expensive treatments. You bitch and moan about the waste of energy, yet don't even think about the amount of energy poured into the creation of drugs that are in the end less effective in that they often can only slow down a disease, and will require the production of that drug for years in highly energy inefficient methods.
You can also ignore the billions of dollars that are lost to insurance, malpractice, and general health care for sufferers, because of these diseases. Strictly from a monetary view, the research on these diseases is worth far, far, more, than the equivalent costs.
The next time you feel the need to apply your juvenile moral superiority on subjects you don't understand and refuse to learn about, just go ahead and slap yourself in the face. If you are going to act in a way that is the equivalent of a slap in the face to those whom you marginalize due to your lack of knowledge, you might as well make it square and do it to yourself too.
~Carmine "Cai" M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
